Moab...Where?

I was sat in my hotel room back in Omaha wondering where else in America I'd like to visit, and so I asked good old Google. I typed in, "top 10 places to visit in the U.S.", and what came up amongst the search results was a page showing alternative cities to visit.

Looking down the list I saw some pictures which immediately drew my eye, the stills on the webpage were for a place called Moab. Now I don't know about you but I'd never heard of Moab before, never the less the images associated with it meant I simply had to go there.

Months later I flew into Denver and got a connecting flight straight to Moab which is located on the east side of Utah. It was a regular flight into Denver on some kind of standard Boeing commuter jet, but the flight into Moab was on a 12 seater turboprop aircraft, and what a flight that was.

The tiny aircraft flew pretty much straight through the canyons on it's way to Moab, the views from the larger than normal aircraft windows were phenomenal, it was almost as if you could reach out and touch the scenery. 

Another advantage of being on such a tiny jet was that the cockpit was open to the passengers, on approach to Moab airfield you could watch the pilots at work as they battled the cross winds and thermals being thrown up from the canyon floor. 

After I landed I collected my luggage and made for the hire car lot. I'd booked the cheapest car they had, but after flashing my military I.D. I was upgraded to a Jeep Wrangler with the addition of a, "thanks for your service". 

I headed out from the airfield and just a few miles down the road, I was greeted by the impressively red rock that surrounds Moab. Steep sided canyon walls dictated the direction of the main highway into town, which sat like an island of convenience at the edge of a murky ribbon, otherwise known as the Colorado River.

Arriving at my accommodation I found it difficult to absorb all of what I could see. I don't think I've ever stayed anywhere that is so humbled by it's surroundings in every single direction. But with two huge national parks to see, slick rock mountain biking to do, I snapped out of my dumbfoundedness and headed out to the first port of call, Arches National Park.

As I headed deep into the park it was well above 100 degrees, and the sandy desert like floor reflected the intense heat straight back into my face. Taking a 4x4 trail I headed out to Tower Arch, and a 4 mile trek in the arid scorched air of the day. Carrying only one litre of water in my rucksack it was probably pushing it to be honest, but against my better judgement I cracked on.

I arrived at Tower Arch and took some respite in the shade provided by this huge sandstone formation. In that kind of heat your sweat evaporates instantly and so has a pickling effect on your body. Maybe one litre wasn't enough after all, and getting lost on the way back through the sandstone fins could literally be fatal. 

Careful navigation on the way back ensured I got to the car just in time to chug down an American staple, Gatorade. Feeling refreshed but also a little wary, I pushed on through the park taking in the aptly named Fiery Furnace, Double Arch, Balanced Rock, and the ultimate show stopper, Delicate Arch.

The next morning with the mercury still well into triple digits, I collected a mountain bike from a local shop and cycled the ten miles up hill to the Brand Trails. This network of trails caters for all abilities. There's family friendly up and down riding, but also a mixture of technical slick rock, some extreme rock clearing stunts, and steep switch backs. 

I spent the next four hours in the saddle in the baking sun, I rode most of the trails on offer but the heat was taking it out of me, and so I headed back into town. Once back in town I jumped into the Jeep to make to make the most of what light was still available, and headed into Moab's second National Park, Canyonlands.

The author Edward Abbey, described the Canyonlands as "the most weird, wonderful, magical place on earth - there is nothing else like it anywhere", and trust me he's not wrong. Driving around the canyon rim and stopping off at all the view points along the way, I struggled to take in the vast openness of what I could see.

This colourful landscape was carved by two rivers, the Colorado River and the Green River. What's left behind is a complex relief pattern of mesas, buttes, and canyons, all presented in a rich deep red sandstone.  

Like I stated previously, the beauty of coming to National Parks in Moab is the lack of tourists (present company excluded). I traversed the whole park and never saw more than a couple of dozen other visitors, and this quietness made my visit a very personal experience.

Toward the entrance of the park I'd noticed a small trail that was only for vehicles with high ground clearance, and due to the generosity of the lady in the car hire shop, today that was me. I took a metalled track which snaked down toward the canyon floor.

It was a track like you see on TV, it was just wide enough for a car with a drop of maybe 1000ft to one side. This gave me the perfect opportunity to drop the Jeep into 4 wheel drive and pretend that I was Colin McCrae. With a boot full of throttle, a good amount of opposite lock, and a clear view out of the side window, I was Colin McCrae. 

That day I spent off roading in the Canyonlands has to be one of my best ever days, and I can't recommend Moab enough. I know it's slightly off the beaten track but it's worth the extra hassle. From the flight into Moab, to driving the canyon rim, to mountain biking on the red sandstone, it has to be one of my favourite destinations to date.

And just to cap the day off the apartment I was staying in had an outdoor hot tub. I sat outside soaking my tired bones and enjoyed the light show as a thunder storm kicked off (good idea/bad idea, you decide).

Moab, make sure it's on your bucket list.

Pandora's box

According to Greek mythology, Zeus gave his daughter Pandora a small box with a giant lock on it. The key for the lock was given to her husband Epithemeus. Zeus left strict instructions with him that the box must never be opened.

Even though Pandora was very curious, her husband heeded the warning from Zeus knowing all to well that Pandora's father could be quite cunning, and so he wouldn't allow the box to be opened.

Pandora's curiosity got the better of her one day when Epithemeus was sleeping, she took the key and opened the box. Hate, envy, disease, and sickness flew out of the box, all the bad things that had ever been experienced. Pandora tried to close the box but it was too late, just as the lid was closing out flew a small bug. The bug was "hope".

As a result of the opening of the box evil had now been unleashed unto the world, but also, and more importantly so had "hope".

This blog is a follow up for the last blog which took a light hearted view into the internet and social media. It's not set out to form any conclusions, it's not designed to offend anyone, it's simply here to raise a few questions, and hopefully encourage discussion.

Whilst I was in America I became heavily reliant on the internet for communictaing with the UK, and also for keeping up with what family and friends were doing. One of the main things that stood out was how many poeple would post pictures of their children on social media. On several occasions I saw the children of people I'd never met before simply because I was friends with someone who'd commented on, or liked a picture. 

I started to wonder to myself if it was right that I could see the children of people whom I'd never met. On other occasions I saw pictures that some people might describe as inappropriate, inappropriate in the sense that they were semi-naked pictures which could possibly be seen by the wider public. 

This got me wondering who else could see the pictures we post online, is everyone in your contact list someone you have regular contact with, or maybe just someone you used to know a few decades ago, and are your security settings adequate?

In addition to this, certain sites have a licence to use your content in anyway they see fit, and even if you deactivate your account it's nigh on impossible to remove your images completely. 

When I read the article with the headline, "People exist on social media before they've even taken a breath", it all felt a little wrong to me, and I wondered what the guidelines were?

According to most of the children's charities that I researched, Facebook's content isn't suitable to anyone under the age of 13, although it also said most children simply lie about their age to open an account anyway, and often with the aid of an adult. 

Most of the pictures of children I've seen posted on social media, are of children a lot younger than 13. Does this count as inappropriate exposure to sites not recommended for those below this age?

However, I feel there are other issues concerning social media and the young that need to be looked at.

A lot of the content on social media seems to have a lot of one upsmanship inherent to it. We've all seen people putting pictures of their new car on the net, and then immediately post how much it cost. We've all seen the pictures of people extreme skydiving on an ironing bored whilst juggling porcupines, is it all not just a bit self centred and false?

If so, then isn't this spreading a message to the young that it's all about self gratification and what's in it for you?

Many friends I know who've stopped using social media recently have done so for the very reasons I've described above. One friend who has a young child put it to me that some people seem to post endless pictures of their children to prove how much of a good parent they are.

I'm not saying this is or isn't the case. I'm not saying social media has a positive or negative influence. I simply want to know what the rules are, where are the guidelines?

As I thought deeper into the issue of guidelines for social media, I began to broaden my search for answers about the internet as a whole. I wondered at what age you should give a child an iPad (other tablet devices are available), I assumed it must be around thirteen, the same as the age for opening a Facebook account. After speaking to some of my friends who are themselves parents it turns out I'm woefully out of touch, a good friend told me the other day it was more like 4.

I still can't quite get used to this idea. At the age of 4 I was busy throwing my own poo around, and urinating in my mothers pot plants when she wasn't looking (that last part is actually true and they were in the living room). 

The internet is an amazing technological achievement, it's helped make communication instantaneous and affordable. It's helped produce huge scientific achievements by facilitating the work of labs all over the world. It's helped to bring down borders and even governments. It's educational value and content are simply unparalleled. 

All of this advancement has however come at a price. The very freedom it wields so readily can be hijacked for the most inhumane causes.

During the recent Kenyan Mall siege, al-Shabab live tweeted from the mall attempting to legitimise and justify in real time the indiscriminate killing it was carrying out. Although we of course find this sickening, there are others out there who sympathise and even champion their cause. 

A report from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre on digital hate speech from May 2013 said there's been a 30% increase in online hate forums and terrorism over the past 12 months. 

There are literally hundreds of reports on internet bullying, and the disgraceful practice of "trolling".

70% of young teens have been victims of cyber bullying, and the craze of "sexting" has claimed many lives through suicide in North America and Europe.

So with all of this potential negative influence should we still be in such a hurry to expose the next generation to the internet?

Now I can hear some people reading this saying to themselves that it's the parents job to police their child's exposure to the internet, and that if they were responsible they would know what their children were looking at.

I think this is a very simplistic way of looking at things. The pressures of modern life where both mum and dad have to work just to keep a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, and food in their bellies can feel insurmountable. Hence it's not always that easy to find the time to constantly supervise their offspring.

In addition to this, we shouldn't neglect the responsibility of the markets. Tech firms have made millions from the growth in the internet, but in the main this is to further their bottom line. Corporations spend huge sums of money to employ whole teams of experts, who's sole task it is to influence what you, and your children wish to consume.

The influence of the internet is without bounds, and so I believe it's unfair to simply imply it's down to the parents to police it.

So now I should imagine you're thinking if I have children I'll move to a log cabin at the top of a mountain. Well that would never work anyway with Google's proposed project "loon" (Google it). 

But that wouldn't be the answer, to restrict or even forbid your child's contact with the internet would only stifle their development. Today's modern industry demands that people are in the main, I.T. fluent, and this is only going to increase as fibre optic cables tighten their choke hold on the modern world. 

In the last decade or so the pace of change has been so rapid, that in some respects I don't think we've had the opportunity to stop and take stock of the situation. Market forces who've moved in are so powerful that this kind of pause is not in their interest, and so a debate would have been ridiculed and left to the lobbyists to dispose of. 

This all takes me back to my earlier question, where are the guidelines for exposing the most vulnerable in society, children, to the internet?

Shouldn't theses guidelines radiate from government, and shouldn't they then be implemented in close partnership with the I.T. industry?

And after all, if government doesn't govern with the best interests of it's electorate at heart, then what's the point of government?

All of the above stills are from Moab, Utah. There will be a blog post about one of the most amazing places I visited during my time in America next time round.

But for now, I'll leave you with several things to think about.


Mark Zuckerberg hopes that eventually there will be no age restrictions on Facebook, and no doubt he'll get his way.

What if one day the fruit of your loins decides that they never wanted to be on social media because it's not cool anymore, but now they can't remove their data as it's no longer their property?

My generation approaching their mid-thirties are statistically the worst offenders for posting pictures of their children on the internet.

As with the storey of Pandora's box the internet brings with it "hope" for the world. Unfortunately this "hope" comes served with a huge side order of pain, but you only need look at the Arab Spring from 2010 to see how it can liberate.

And lastly, the irony of me writing a blog criticising social media that's advertised on social media is not lost on me.

The Division of Perpetual Narcissists

In my last blog I said that the next one would be about Yellowstone National Park. I really intended this to be the case but unfortunately I need to pass on a burden that I feel I can carry no more.

What I am about to share with you is a story known by few but based on actual events, not too dissimilar to the box office smash "Pearl Harbour" starring Ben Affleck. The tale I have to tell is steeped in scientific facts, although none of them proven.

Let me begin...

Sometime towards the end of the bell bottomed seventies at a super secret squirrel meeting of Western governments, and at a location I'm not at liberty to divulge, a discussion was taking place of the utmost importance.

It was decided that after the two world wars earlier in the century, after the free love of the swinging sixties, after the grooviness of the psychedelic seventies, there was just far too much liberty going around, and it must, no matter what the cost, be retarded several notches.  

Reports from the top minds of the time had been evaluated and a way forward was about to be proposed. The plan was quite brutal but at the same time quite brilliant.

At birth, every citizen of the Western world would be taken from their mothers arms, at this point a chip would be implanted into the new born baby which they would carry for life. The chip had the ability to track the subject 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Every 12 - 24 months the chip would require various software and hardware upgrades as technologies improved, and hence it would be necessary to take the subject in, periodically, for repeat procedures.

In order to monitor the movements of the subject it would be necessary to launch into orbit several dozen satellites, which would also require upgrading from time to time. To be able to monitor subjects outside the scope of these satellites, a device would be placed in each and every household to ensure full time tracking of all citizens.

Monitoring stations would be built housing hundreds of workers who's sole responsibility would be to track all citizens around the clock, they would be able to pin point the whereabouts of anybody in the western world to within 10 square metres. 


As technologies improve and become more miniaturised all buildings would be fitted with microscopic cameras and tiny microphones. This new technology would be hard wired directly into the monitoring stations enabling the creation of  highly detailed archives.

By cross referencing information in these archives it would be possible to tell what subjects were saying, to whom, where, and when. Once this data was processed it could be used to terminate anyone who had even the remotest chance of nonconformity.

Initially these measures seemed to all present at the super secret squirrel meeting to be a little heavy handed and brutal, but once weighed against the threat of an outbreak of anarchy, it was decided that nothing was beyond the pale and the status quo should be upheld no matter what the cost.

And the cost was huge. It was estimated that by the time the implants and repeat procedures were paid for, after the satellites were launched, after monitoring devices were installed into all households, after the monitoring stations were built and manned, after the technologies were invested into miniaturise the necessary cameras and microphones, and after the archives were established with an army of analysts to process the raw data, we were talking big bucks.

The initial estimate over the first 10 years of operation was an eye watering, wallet busting, deficit destroying, one hundred squillion dollars.

At this point the room fell silent for several minutes.

Abruptly the peace was then interrupted by a voice from an unlikely quarter. 

Dressed in brown cords, a sage green tank top, sandals with grey socks, and sporting the finest comb over ever to grace a pot of brylcreem was the left wing egg head called, Helmut Von Facebucken.

Helmut and his Division of Perpetual Narcissists had a wholly less invasive idea that they'd been working on for the past few years. Their plan, although achieving the same goal, would require no surgery at all, and the best part of their plan was that people would actually take part of their own accord! 

Helmut went on to outline the plan.

Pivotal to Helmut's idea was a device he had under development which he would call, a "smart phone". People would be issued with these devices which they would be encouraged to upgrade every 12 - 24 months allowing the device to contain the most up to date technology possible.

These "smart phones" would have software downloaded onto them, the downloads would be know as "apps". Most of these "apps" would be harmless puzzle games, educational quizzes, and mundane everyday handy tools such as flashlights and compasses. But the piece de resistance was an app he hadn't managed to name yet.

This "app" would encourage the user to transmit data relevant to what they were doing, what they were planning to do, but more importantly what they were thinking. People would take things called, "selfies" using the miniature cameras on their "smart phones",  which could be used to keep a chronological record of their appearance and help log what they were doing at that particular point in time. 

Helmut, who now felt as if he was on a roll, went on to gloat about how his idea was much more brilliant than the first plan because it meant that individuals would openly volunteer to share their information. He continued to say that people would divulge everything from where they worked, where they were born, pictures of their immediate family and friends, and even their children.

Feeling particularly full of himself, he went on to postulate that people would even camp out in the streets for days just to acquire the latest versions of his "smart phones"!

It was at this point that things broke down.

The room where the super secret squirrel meeting was taking place exploded into rivers! seas! no oceans! of cascading laughter. Rumour has it, although this has never been corroborated, that someone laughed so hard they actually lost an eye, and that because of a strong smell of urine in the air several people soiled themselves.

The leaders of the Western world thought it was completely preposterous that people would freely volunteer such sensitive and sacred information about their lives. 

Needless to say Helmut and his Division of Perpetual Narcissists were ejected from the meeting, the whole team was dismissed without even being given time to clear out their desks.  They were chastised by their academic peers and dissolved into the ether never to be heard of again....

The above stills were all taken in Yellowstone Park, a truly amazing piece of real estate. The park contains over 10, 000 geothermal features, it contains the most famous geyser in the world, "Old Faithful", and also the most active geyser in the world, "Steamboat".

Yellowstone is massive, covering nearly 3,500 square miles, this means you really need a few days to take it in. It's probably one of the most famous National Parks in America and because of this it gets very busy, and out of necessity, it's very touristy. And it's for this very reason that I preferred Grand Teton.

The storey I shared with you came to me after reading a headline that said something like, "people exist on social media before they've even taken a breath", and also after I watched a woman in her mid forties trying to check in on Facebook in Caesars Palace Las Vegas.

I hope you found the story quite light hearted but there is a more serious and sinister side to follow in the next few weeks. 

Wyomings other famous son

Independence day in America, the 4th of July is a huge deal out here, and with the weather in fine fettle my chosen destination was Yellowstone National Park. A friend in the USAF who grew up there gave me some directions and some points of particular interest to visit during my time in Wyoming.

One of the places he mentioned was Grand Teton. Now I'd never heard of this place before and didn't really know what a Teton was, if it was actually anything. I went down to the National Park office in Omaha where they give out free maps for all the National Parks in America, and I collected the two maps I needed for my journey. 

When thinking about National Parks in the states everyone has heard of Yellowstone but Wyomings other famous son Grand Teton, is every bit as special if not more so. The park contains a 40 mile stretch of the Teton Mountain Range, and no matter where you are in the park you're always aware of their presence.

As National Parks here are on such a huge scale, most things within them are best accessed by car. This isn't a problem in Grand Teton, as you can see in the shots the roads are literally at the foot of the mountains, this only adds to the intimidation you feel from the ancient formations.

I spent most of the day hiking around Jenny Lake, it was a 4 hour hike in the shadow of Grand Teton itself. The lush green forest of the park sheltered various species of wildlife, and I narrowly missed out on seeing a Grizzly, but there was plenty of birds, beavers and deer roaming free.

Once the early morning low cloud had lifted, the crystalline views you see below were all around. The sky so blue and the contrasting cotton wool like clouds so white, it made for an epic backdrop. I know I have used many superlatives in my blogs about my American experience, but Grand Teton raised the bar yet another notch.

I really enjoyed Grand Teton, probably one of the best places I ever been. Places like this are what give America its rich diversity, I know the big cities are easier to get to but the effort of travel is paid back in spades. I would love to return in mid autumn to see the park shod in trees of golden amber, I've seen some shots by a photographer called Mangelsen and they are simply breathtaking (another superlative).

So does Wyomings second famous son deserve to take a back seat to Yellowstone, log on in the next few weeks to find out.

Grand Teton panorama.

Afternoons spent with my Canon

Rustic old barn on the way to Lincoln.

School buses after the morning run.

The biggest plant pots in the world.

Offutt parade square.

Old school Chevy flatbed at Fort Calhoun. 

Not sure if this is an old grain drier or just another barn.

Omahas Old Market

Omahas Old Market area is comprised of office space, bars, restaurants and coffee shops. Most of the buildings are beautiful old red brick warehouse style spaces that date from the late 1800s. Some of the buildings still carry the old style painted advertisements on their exterior which adds to the sense of nostalgia.

Old Market panorama. 

Omaha is my second Homaha.

New Orleans - Part Deux

After my last blog post on New Orleans I fear their tourism board will be removing me from their Christmas card list, and so to them I offer an olive branch. New Orleans wasn't all bad, they have some great seafood restaurants, you must try a muffaletta from the central market, and there are some amazing live music venues on Frenchman Street.

Now that I've done my bit for international diplomacy it's back to business. This post is linked with the last New Orleans blog, but it comes with a few new stories which will hopefully come to an apex at the end.

Just before I get started, a good friend of mine asked me whether I was venting in the last blog post?

I'd prefer to say observing, digesting, and analysing....

Several months ago now I was attending a short course lead by a member of the USAF who just happened to be black. As always the conversation drifted away from work and moved onto what I liked about the States, what I missed about home, what he liked about the UK, and more importantly what he didn't like about his home, the U.S.

To my surprise what he said he didn't like about his home was to do with the colour of his skin, this was surprising to me because I'd not seen anything in the form of racism, at least not in the mid-west.

He said that in Europe he never felt that the first thing people saw was the colour of his skin, instead they just saw another person, and the colour of his skin was of no consequence.

Now whilst I've been travelling around America I've passed through many airports. 
One of the main things that stuck out to me was that nearly all of the low paid workers in the bars, restaurants, and fast-food chains were black. 

This got me wondering whether black people in America were afforded the same opportunities as y'all white folks?

I put this question to my friend in the USAF, the response I got blew me away with it's simplicity, and at the same time its absolute genius.

He said, "have you ever played Monopoly"? 

"Yes", I replied.

"Ok then, if everyone starts playing the game at the same time then everyone has an equal chance of winning, and making lots of money".

"But if you don't start playing until after the game has been going on for a few hours, you'll find that all the good properties like, Mayfair, and Park Lane are gone. Instead what you're left with are properties that know one really wants like, WhiteChapel Road, and Old Kent Road".

I don't think you can understate the simplistic logic that this metaphor carries, nor it's relevance. 


I'm going to leave you with that for now, and let it sink in while I take you back a few more months for another story.

You may remember I travelled North of the border earlier this year, I flew into Ottawa, travelled around for a few days, and flew back to Omaha from Buffalo. I crossed the border by coach and then took a taxi to the International Airport for my flight back to the mid-west. 

My taxi driver from the coach station happened to be a middle aged black women. During the course of my taxi ride she felt it necessary to share her life story with me. I'm usually quite sceptical of strangers who wish to share their life with you, maybe they just want a sympathetic ear, maybe it makes them feel better to load their problems onto someone else? Anyway I digress. 

She told me that she was originally from California, but she ran away because a member of her family committed suicide. She said she missed the sea, missed her family, her friends, and that she longed to return. She didn't enjoy living in Buffalo but was unable to leave.

When I asked her why she couldn't leave she told me she was tied down with debt, she had too many loans, too much finance. All of her debt was secured against a property she could ill afford, but at the same time she couldn't afford to sell. 

Again, I'm going to leave you with this for now, let it sink in and tell another short story.

You may have read recently in the news back home about comments made by that Great British scholar and Ambassador, Jamie Oliver.

He said something along the lines of, "the poor have big TVs but eat junk".

I'd say he's probably right, but last time I checked BrightHouse (other weekly payment stores do exist) didn't offer finance on chicken dinners?

Furthermore, Jamie Oliver MBE may be right, but he's missed the point by a country mile. 

Today corporations that make everyday products don't just manufacture, they are attached to multinational conglomerates, underpinned by investment banks, and with their own finance arms.

So let's get this straight, companies make a product, and then give you the money to buy their products?

Sounds a bit like asking an alcoholic to run the distillery. What's more is that since the government decided de-regulation was the future, the alcoholic running your distillery can choose his own leave allowances, salary, and anything else he deems fit to bestow on himself. And If that weren't enough, said alcoholic has also been charged with looking after your prize 25 year old single malt!

The 1% of the population who own and control all the wealth lend money to anyone who wants it, whether they can meet the repayments or not. They secure the debt against the product or any other equitable source they can find, charge interest on the finance, and so make money on the product as well as the loan. Win win.

Now to bring it all together.

The first story on the face of it looks like simple racism, but I don't see it that way. It may have began as racism but a lack of opportunities is more to do with wealth inequality, at least today it is. 

Wealth inequality is at the heart of the second story, the credit given to her by various finance companies wasn't done for her benefit. It was to fulfil a dividend payed to share holders on a board of some holdings company some where in the world, who probably don't even know her name.

And you've probably guessed it, wealth inequality is what Monsieur Oliver was actually describing with his dig at low income families, and I bet with a fortune of around 150 million he has one or two, "big TVs" himself.

One of the greatest challenges we face today is trying to create a greater spread of wealth. Wealth inequality is the source of many of the worlds woes, from childhood obesity, to environmental ruin, to global jihad.

The dissatisfaction that the gap between the have and have nots creates, is more powerful than any weapon that we in the western world currently posses, but while the 1% that control all the wealth also control government I can see nothing changing. 

Whats more is that the stories I have described above don't come from the heart of the Congo, or any other third world country. They aren't from a bygone area of segregation or black and white televisions. They are set in the present day, in one of the most powerful countries on the planet, and with one of the largest economies to boot.

"The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose".

James A. Baldwin